Catalogue of arguments for the existence of God

Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.

Click to expand...

is an expression of faith. It is not an argument for the material reality of evolution based on the fossil record, observed behaviour or other establishing criteria. Note the way that the fact is established - at the end of the chain of evidence.

Oh very well, if you insist. I think this ought to settle the matter, but if anyone still has any questions they should feel at liberty to ask them. If I deem the questions sufficiently intelligent I will answer them fully and instantaneously.

Skipped to the end of that thread (by which time Dwyer had been trounced) - oh my aching sides

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is no way you can have given my argument the attention it requires in a mere eight minutes. Since you specifically requested that I link to the thread, it behooves you to study it with greater diligence. When you have done so, you are free to return and ask as many questions as you like. Until then, however, I must ask you to keep your opinions to yourself.

I am always surprised when people think that religion is based on faith. It is not, it is based on reason.

A few years ago, I successfully proved the existence of God on a 200 page thread on these boards. Shall I do it again?

Click to expand...

Interesting re-write of history there. I remember that thread, you didn't by any means get as far as the end of your 'proof', and you ignored all my questions/comments not surprisingly. Just when I thought you might get on with it, it was binned for no reason other than boredom on the part of the mods, it was way over 1000 posts by that time IIRC.

You tried to get posters to follow your proof, but insisted on steps of logic which posters were not prepared to take without a better rationalisation from yourself. You didn't seem keen to provide this rationalisation.

God is a ridiculous concept, a simplistic answer to a complicated world. I suspect you know this and are just toying with people who are less intelligent than yourself. The world is just a straightforward, determinist reality which is unfolding along the lines of physics as inevitably as it was at the big bang. We have the illusion of freewill due to our inability to see the future, which is lucky.

Do you believe in evolution? That would seem to fly straight in the face of the accepted forms of religion, thus leaving only the pick 'n' choose version left with God so vague as to be meaningless.

is an expression of faith. It is not an argument for the material reality of evolution based on the fossil record, observed behaviour or other establishing criteria. Note the way that the fact is established - at the end of the chain of evidence.

Click to expand...

I find the proof of everyone sharing a common ancestor as very clear, do you? It is a simple proof if you want it...

Maybe I shouldn't have muddied the water with talking about everything before 1972 as different to personal experience, but I do draw that line between first and second hand experience, I find it useful to recognise what I have experienced, and what is basically reported speech.

Yep. I recall you getting quite upset about it at the time too. Didnt you actually manage to get yourself banned by the end of that thread?
.

Click to expand...

No and no.
You seem to have a pretty lousy memory.
There is not much point in lying about your 'infamous' thread, everyone saw it and nothing with proven to a single poster. Apart from that fact that you are a dick of course.

Sorry, but there is no way you can have given my argument the attention it requires in a mere eight minutes. Since you specifically requested that I link to the thread, it behooves you to study it with greater diligence.<snip>

I think you misunderstand my statement. I am simply saying that evolution is a historical issue, and thus suffers from the usual lack of evidence that all historical issues have. Of course stories have been passed on and written down, but it is difficult to be certain what happened even a couple of hundred years ago, let alone 2000+ up to 3600 mya odd.

The evidence for evolution is convincing though, especially the proof that we are all related through a common ancestor - we are related, fact!

I think you misunderstand my statement. I am simply saying that evolution is a historical issue, and thus suffers from the usual lack of evidence that all historical issues have. Of course stories have been passed on and written down, but it is difficult to be certain what happened even a couple of hundred years ago, let alone 2000+ up to 3600 mya odd.

The evidence for evolution is convincing though, especially the proof that we are all related through a common ancestor - we are related, fact!

I don't see how bacon comes into it tho.

Click to expand...

I think the point butcher's is making is that your method of constructing an argument in debate is back to front. You've started with the conclusion and then stated that the truth of the conclusion is why you believe the evidence.

A properly constructed argument would start with the evidence and draw a conclusion from that.

I think the point butcher's is making is that your method of constructing an argument in debate is back to front. You've started with the conclusion and then stated that the truth of the conclusion is why you believe the evidence.

A properly constructed argument would start with the evidence and draw a conclusion from that.

Click to expand...

As I said to Butchers - stating that evolution is a historical fact is not a conclusion, it is part of its definition.

You claim that my method is starting with a conclusion. I have shown that I am starting from first principles - so if you were criticising my method, then where is your riposte? Are you backing away? Why did you start in the first place - the original statement was fine. If you feel that maybe this statement is fine but others I have made are not, then give an example...

You claim that my method is starting with a conclusion. I have shown that I am starting from first principles - so if you were criticising my method, then where is your riposte? Are you backing away? Why did you start in the first place - the original statement was fine. If you feel that maybe this statement is fine but others I have made are not, then give an example...

Click to expand...

I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.

I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.

I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.

Click to expand...

Again, stating that evolution is historical is simply stating part of its definition. You seem unable to comment on that.

I am well aware of begging the question, but there is no circular argument that I am using, I am simply stating two pieces of information. One that evolution is historical by definition. the second is that historical data is again by definition going to be second hand. The further back it goes the higher the hand is.

As I said earlier, you would be more clear if you stated the reasoning in the usual way to show that it is circular.

A logical argument would say something like "these facts lead to this conclusion", you've got it the other way round.

Click to expand...

No I haven't Blagsta, I stated that evolution is historical, and it is by definition. If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow. I do not need to state that milk comes from a cow first with the conclusion that I have a glass of milk. I can start with a glass of milk because you know what one of those is.